International Journal of Intercultural Relations30 (2006) 261–279

Ethnic minorities and the Spanish and Catalaneducational systems: From exclusion to

intercultural education

Jordi Garreta Bochaca!

Departament de Geografia i Sociologia, Facultat de Ciencies de l’Educacio, Complex de la Caparrella s/n,Universitat de Lleida, Lleida 25192, Spain

Abstract

Since the 1990s, cultural diversity in Spanish classrooms has increased notably with the arrival ofimmigrant origin students. This fact, together with the European Union discourses aboutconsideration for cultural differences, have contributed to the appearance in Spain, and particularlyin Catalonia, of an intercultural discourse. This article analyses the evolution of educational policiesup to the current dominant discourse (from exclusion to incorporation in the school and theclassroom, passing through segregationist actions) emphasising the difficulty nowadays of puttingthis into everyday practice, among other things for the lack of references and the absence ofresources. This is done through the analysis of different official documents, as well as recoupingdifferent pieces of research on this question by both the author and others.r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Resumen

La diversidad cultural en las aulas espanolas se ha incrementado notablemente a partir de los anosnoventa por la llegada de alumnado de origen inmigrante y este hecho, junto con los discursos detoma en consideracion de las diferencias culturales que ha realizado la Union Europea, hancontribuido a la aparicion en Espana, y particularmente en Cataluna, del discurso intercultural. Esteartıculo analiza la evolucion realizada hasta llegar al discurso dominante actual (de la exclusion a laincorporacion en la escuela y en las aulas, pasando por actuaciones segregacionistas), eso sı,enfatizando en la dificultad existente hoy en dıa de traducir el mismo a la practica cotidiana, entreotras cosas por la falta de referentes y por la ausencia de recursos. Todo ello se realizara a partir del

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

0147-1767/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.11.006

!Tel.: +34 973 702098; fax: +34 973 703119.E-mail address: jgarreta@geosoc.udl.es.

analisis de diferentes documentos oficiales, ası como de recuperar diferentes investigaciones ajenas ypropias realizadas sobre esta cuestion.r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ethnic minorities; Immigrants; Gypsies; Spanish and Catalan educational system; Compensation;Intercultural education; Sociology of education

Palabras clave: Minorıas etnicas; Inmigrantes; Gitanos; Sistema educativo espanol y catalan; Compensacion;Educacion intercultural; Sociologıa de la educacion

1. Introduction

Cultural diversity is not a new phenomenon inside the walls of the school, but it hasundergone changes in the way it is viewed. It has gone1 from models that postulated thatintegration into a society should be through assimilation into the dominant group of theculturally different, to more modern discourses about recognition and valuing, to a greateror lesser extent, of the ‘‘other cultures’’ by society and in schools.The evolution observed in other societies does not differ greatly from the Spanish case,

although the rhythm and the timing do not coincide. Although it is true that there is still along way to go before Spain, and, specifically Catalonia, one of its AutonomousCommunities (regions),2 can be referred to as a society where intercultural education hasbeen implanted, it is also true that the discourses are leading in this direction. However,nowadays, it can be affirmed that assimilation, integration, through positive discrimina-tion with compensatory programmes and, partially, cultural pluralism (which, as well astransmitting the dominant culture, takes the minority cultures and languages intoconsideration, although maintaining distances) do appear to have been put into practice.3

Nevertheless, this is still not true as far as multicultural education for everyone isconcerned (extension of the anterior focus to the minority and majority students) orintercultural education, which would implicitly contain the idea of interaction between,and the enrichment of, all members of society. At this level, we must refer more todiscourses than to actual practice.Julio Carabana, in an 1993 article that had important repercussions, considered that

among the multicultural ‘‘problems’’ in education in Spain (i.e., those that have interestedteachers and researchers), the oldest is probably the difference in academic performancebetween social groups. This led to compensatory programmes that were applied to ethnicminorities. Other important ‘‘problems’’ are bilingualism in specific AutonomousCommunities with their own languages (Catalonia is one of these), as well as the arrivalof immigrants and their concentration in certain zones and schools, and the presence of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1In some places, but in others this evolution has not occurred or has followed other directions.2The administrative division into 17 Autonomous Communities has caused diversification in relation to the

theme of this study. This has meant that since this structure was created, the research carried out has been partial,that is, centred on some of these Communities. The complexity of a comparative study has restricted any stepforward in this sense, as does the youth of the sample under consideration for the cultural differences (however, itmust be mentioned that our research team has produced a project to analyse the work done comparatively andlines for the future).

3With respect to these focuses, see, among others, Tarrow (1990).

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279262

indigenous minorities in the country. In the case of Spain, the gypsies fall into this lattercontext.

In Spain, among what are nowadays usually denominated ‘‘ethnic’’ minorities, thegypsies are the group with the most resistant ethnic identity. It has been often stated thatsomething had to be done to integrate them, which in most cases meant ‘‘assimilatingthem’’ into society and the school. Moreover, given that the arrival of a large number offoreign immigrants is relatively recent, the first actions that we find were aimed especiallytowards the gypsies. For Mariano Fernandez Enguita (1996), historically, three stages canbe differentiated in relation to attention to diversity. In a first stage, they were simplyexcluded from the schools, as they were from other institutional and social spheres. In asecond stage, there was a switch from exclusion to segregation given that despite theirname, the so-called bridge-schools became a form of segregated non-transitory schooling.The third step was the incorporation of these children into the ordinary classroom with thebacking of compensatory education programmes. As shown below, in the mid-1990s,compensatory programmes coincided with intercultural discourses, but little practice.Simultaneously, the above-mentioned evolution coexisted with the transformation from acentralised educational system, emanating from Madrid, to a decentralised model wherethe autonomous communities took on a very important role (some more than others) inquestions of education. This, for example, has led to different ways of understanding andworking on cultural diversity. A brief resume of each of this evolution is presented belowand given the diversity of perspectives and action that there is and the little research done,we shall base our research on the autonomous community of Catalonia.

2. Exclusion, segregation and insertion

2.1. Exclusion and segregation

In Spain, in contrast with other countries, since the Real Pragmatica of Medina delCampo (1499), the aim was to make gypsies abandon all distinguishing traits and passunnoticed, and exclusion only appeared as an alternative solution for those who refused tomeld into their surroundings. Later, there was a change to imprisonment for those whoresisted. As Liegeois (1987) states, in most states, the policy of exclusion lost strengthduring the 19th century, generally up to 1950, when gypsy affairs came to be viewed withingeneral surveillance and control measures. From 1945 on (still very soon after the Nazigenocide) confinement was replaced with inclusion for humanitarian considerations andfor the management of an ever more technocratic society.

During most of the Franco period (1939–1975), at an educational level, it could be saidthat more than conscious exclusion, gypsies went through a period of non-compulsoryschooling. Up to a point, it can be said that they attended school when they, and theirfamilies, wanted. Moreover, this was in function of the steps taken in the process ofacculturation into the ‘‘payo4’’ world, totally or partially renouncing their personal andgroup identity (Fernandez Enguita, 1996). This idea is endorsed by Teresa San Roman(1984), who states that the appearance and relative increase in training and educationamong the above-mentioned group means higher acculturation, while illiteracy is a sign ofethnic isolation.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

4In Spain the word payo is used by gypsies to indentify non-gypsies.

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279 263

2.2. Insertion and compensation

Spanish society in the 1960s and 1970s, the last period of Franco’s regime, wascharacterised by economic development and social change. A consequence of this was thegreat migratory movement from the rural zones to the cities, with effects for both. At aneducational level, the panorama could be defined as one of important deficiencies,overcrowding and high dropout rates, and children from marginal minority sectorsdeprived of schooling. It is in this context that the compensatory educational policyappeared in the text of the General Law of Education in 1970, which was aimed to makethe educational system function on a fairer basis. This programme was conceived tocompensate for the deficiencies in the education system (Graneras et al., 1997). As Caleroand Bonal (1999) affirm, the legacy of Franco’s regime in education was a profoundlyunequal education system. It was polarised between a private school that took pupils fromthe better-off classes, and a public school very low in quality and quantity, obsolete inteaching contents and the training of teaching staff, authoritarian in the taking of decisionswithin the institutions and the concept of pedagogic interaction, etc.Of course, there was still segregationist practice disguised under legal texts that, in

theory, aimed for insertion. In 1978, with the Union of the Democratic Centre (UCD) ingovernment, an agreement was signed between the National Secretariat of GypsyApostolate, dependent on the Catholic Church, and the Ministry of Education and Sciencewhich created the Bridge Schools. This covenant lasted until 1986, when it was finallydecided to enrol gypsy children in ordinary centres, although, as Mariano FernandezEnguita (1996) states, there are still exceptional cases of Bridge Schools. The aim of thesewas to facilitate the access of gypsies to school through centres located near their homes,dedicated specifically to them and adaptable to their circumstances. For example, in the1981–1982 school year, there were 182 Bridge Schools in Spain, 11 in Barcelona andanother, without specifying, in Hospitalet (Secretariado Nacional Gitano, 1982). The workcarried out by the National Gypsy Secretariat in 1982 showed that the educationalproblematic of the gypsy school population was related to the consequences of theirexclusion. This took the form of precocious work, lack of social habits, discrimination inschooling, lack of school places, pedagogical imbalance, disadvantage in the educationalsystem and discordance between home and school) and thus an intervention like the BridgeSchools was justified. In fact, it was affirmed as follows:

The creation of special schools is not a result of discrimination, but rather that theaim is to incorporate gypsy infants into the common school, and those schools carrythis name, as they are aimed at preparing the gypsies children to enter into thegeneral schools; it is a transitory stage (p. 16).

This positive appraisal of these ‘‘special’’ classes also occurred in other contexts. Theabove-mentioned Liegeois (1987) affirmed that reality imposed itself and the best in theshort term was not to eliminate these classes, given that the ordinary schools offeredneither the pedagogic quality, respect for the culture, nor the indispensable flexibility intimetables and discipline.Thus, despite the segregation, the perpetuation of the situation and the fact that the

targets were not reached, the result was not totally negative given that it also served toenrol those who would otherwise never have gone to school. It also gave rise to theappearance of a small sector of teachers concerned about the question (Fernandez Enguita,

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279264

1996). Finally, the National Gypsy Secretariat itself, despite having a favourable opinionabout the work of these also partook of the idea of eliminating them and incorporatinggypsy children into ordinary schools especially as the presence of the gypsy children inthese former was being perpetuated.

Simultaneously, as stated, one of the first actions that arose, after overcoming, to a greatextent, the previous policies of exclusion and segregation and thus backing incorporationinto the ordinary classroom, was the creation of the compensatory education programme.To understand this programme and its development in Spain, it is necessary to turn toeducational sociology and, specifically, to the study of social inequalities in education thatbegan in the 1950s in Great Britain and was the centre of attention for more than twodecades. The notion of equality of opportunity arose at the same time that compensatoryeducation was considered one of the most important strategies of educational policy.Naturally, it evolved over time with the appearance of new research, especially British andAmerican. Examples of the latter are the Coleman (1966) report, the study by Jenks et al.(1972) and the rise of theories that questioned the possibility that education could producechanges in society (the ‘‘new educational sociology’’, Bourdieu and Passeron’s theory ofreproduction, etc.), etc. Each of these represented a step forward or backwards for thesepolicies and, in any case, a qualitative change in the way of understanding compensationand its practice (Graneras et al., 1997). In the Spanish case, as presented below, thedevelopment of these programmes happened later than in other Western countries andevolved very differently.

In Spain, although the legal framework is the 1970 General Education Law,compensatory education appeared in 1983 (Royal Decree 27 April 1983, BOE 11 May)with the creation of a specific programme to benefit the geographic zones or populationgroups whose special characteristics required preferential educational attention (Centro deInvestigacion y Documentacion Educativa, 1992, 2000). The main objectives and functionsof that programme were the creation of a school support service, incentives for teachingstaff assigned to less attractive areas, organisation of professional training courses for14–15 years old not enrolled in schools, eradication of illiteracy, creation of grants or helpfor studies, etc. The programme did not envisage the disappearance if inequalities as animmediate target, but rather the development of an equal opportunities policy that wouldgradually lead to educational results not being determined by such variables as living inrural areas or belonging to disfavoured social classes. Samper, Garreta, and Llevot (2001),in general lines, the Spanish project, promoted by J.Ma. Maravall, the minister in FelipeGonzalez’s first socialist government,5 was directly inspired by the experience of Labour’s‘‘Educational Priority Areas’’. The Compensatory Education Programme developed theright of the pupils to receive help to compensate for possible family type deficiencies(recognised in the Constitutional Law of the Statute for Schools, LOECE,6 repealed by theConstitutional Law regulating the Right to Education, LODE7). However, its fundamentsdid not refer to ethnic origin or cultural diversity as factors of inequality in the educationalsystem. Rather it mentioned the ‘‘compensatory and integrational’’ projection ofeducational policy in relation to those disfavoured by their ‘‘economic capacity, social

ARTICLE IN PRESS

5It must be mentioned that J.Ma. Maravall had done a doctorate in sociology under the guidance of theprestigious Oxford professor A.H. Halsey (see, among others, Halsey, 1977).

6Constitutional Law of 19 July 1980.7Constitutional Law 8/1985 of 3 July.

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279 265

level or place of residence’’. The programme did, however, include ‘‘cultural minorities’’ asa specific area of action orientated to the enrolment of the infant population, theregularisation of attendance at class and the avoidance of early dropping out (Terren,2001).In the 1983–84 course, it was applied statewide and its function was to deal with the

needs of those pupils who were at risk of social exclusion. In Catalonia,8 it was first appliedin mainly gypsy La Perona neighbourhood in Barcelona before being expanded to otherareas. The programme came into being with a provisional nature, but in reality, it becameconsolidated. From 1986 to 1987 on, it was extended to students of Moroccan origin in ElRaval in Barcelona, and since then, the number of teachers, the presence of pupils fromother cultures, and its geographical distribution, have continued increasing, reaching allover Catalonia (Crespo, 1997). This was so until the end of 2003 when it disappearedmerged with other Services of the Generalitat de Catalonia (the Catalan AutonomousGovernment).For its part, the 1990 Constitutional Law of General Ordering of the Educational

System, LOGSE,9 underlined as targets of the educational system, among others, respectfor cultures and education in co-operation and the solidarity. For Eduardo Terren (2001),it was the first Spanish educational law affecting all the country (like the Law of Qualityreferred to below) that mentions the need to fight ethnic-cultural and sexual discriminationand, in line with the directives of the Council of Europe, opened the door for theimplantation of intercultural education programmes.10 It should be emphasised that, incontrast to the 1970 LGE, that set out an educational system with parallel compensatoryaction, the LOGSE is intended to build an education system that also compensates forinequalities without parallel action (Graneras et al., 1997).At the end of 1990, the agreement was signed with the Departament d’Ensenyament11 of

the Generalitat to take over the Compensatory Education programme in Catalonia. Thisprogramme was then centred on providing help for the full integration of children withproblems of social exclusion. In practice, these pupils are mainly from the gypsy ethnicgroup and immigrant origin, specifically from the so-called Third World. This programmewas gradually modified, influenced by the teaching demands, as well as the interculturaldiscourse that appeared in a confused way at the beginning, and especially, at the end ofthe 1990s. An example of this confusion is the work of the Laboratory of InterculturalStudies at the University of Granada (Garcıa, Barragan, Granados, & Garcıa–Cano, 2002)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

8Autonomous Community this study is centred on given that it is where the intercultural discourse and theinterest in dealing with cultural diversity is most highly developed. Among other things, this is a result of it beingone of the Autonomous Communities with its own language and which has been characterised by the vindicationof its different culture and identity.

9Constitutional Law 1/1990 of 3 October.10With respect to the discourse by the Council of Europe, consult; Conseil de l’Europe (1983, 1989).11The name of the department in the autonomous administration in Catalonia that looks after all formal

education, except universities. It should be borne in mind that from the 1978 Constitution and the 1979 Statute ofAutonomy, Catalonia has full control of education. That means that it has evolved from a centralised system toone that is decentralised in which the various autonomous governments have the power to manage at aneducational level. This is, however, always within a common legal framework, which defines the minimums,leaving the regional governments with room for manoeuvre. Moreover, in the Catalan case, the fact of having itsown language (as also happens in the Basque Country and Galicia but not in the other autonomous communities)has meant that the teaching language is Catalan (to develop this aspect and that of autonomous education, whichwe do not have space to deal with here, consult: www.gencat.es).

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279266

who show how the little conceptual clarity, the lack of knowledge about diversity in theclassroom in statistical terms, among other questions, led to important doses ofspeculation in the discourse. The authors analysed the X Congreso Nacional de Pedagogıaheld at the beginning of 1992 under the theme ‘‘Intercultural Education in the Perspectiveof the United Europe’’. They draw attention to the little research carried out, the lack oftheoretical reference points, the vagueness or simplicity of the proposals made, although‘‘with good intentions’’, the corporate interest in taking over a theme that they ‘‘hadalways’’ worked on, etc.

Recently a new step was taken at the legislative level in Spain, namely the approval inParliament (31 October 2002) of the Project for the Constitutional Law of Quality inEducation. Without going into excessive detail, given that the specific details still remain tobe decided despite the time that has elapsed and waiting still to see how these evolve withthe new government, this Popular Party law includes significant support for opportunitiesfor quality for everyone as one of its axis (the third). This axis would specify, for example,the principal of equality (that guarantees, according to the document, equality ofopportunity for quality) and the right of the pupil to receive help to compensate for family,economic, social and cultural shortcomings that impede, or obstruct access to, andpermanence in, the education system. Moreover, it dedicates special attention (chapter VII,first section) to foreign students and their specific educational needs. To this end, it willpromote the creation of learning programmes and specific classrooms with the intention offavouring their integration, as well as adopting the necessary measures to assess theirparents about their rights, duties and opportunities. It is clear that we will need to bewatchful over coming years as to how this law is applied in the day to day in the classroom.

3. Towards intercultural education: analysis of the contradictions of the Catalan model

One of the motives for the development of the intercultural discourse in Spain, butespecially in Catalonia, the Autonomous Community we concentrate on, is the notableincrease in the number of pupils of immigrant origin in the classroom, especially in publiccentres. Thus, for example, while in the 1991–1992 course these pupils made up 0.8% oftotal pupil numbers in schools in Catalonia, in 1995–1996 this figure was 1.5%, and in1998–1999, 1.8%. In 2000–2001 they represented 2.5% and in 2002–2003 this had risen to4.7% (Departament d’Ensenyament, 2002; Secretaria per a la Immigracio, 2003). The samesource provides the geographic origins of these pupils. The data from 2001 to 2002 showsthe following distribution. The 35.1% are from North Africa, 37.8% from Central andSouth America, 8.3% from the European Union, 7.4% from non-EU European countries,6.5% from Asia and Oceania, 4.1% from sub-Saharan Africa and 0.8% from NorthAmerica. Another interesting question is the effect of this ‘‘new’’ focus on the gypsies, anethnic minority with a long history in Spain. They are, for example, invisible at a statisticallevel, in the sense that, in contrast to pupils of immigrant origin for whom statistics appearevery year, it is not known exactly how many of them there are, where they are or theirdegree of academic success or failure.

It was in 1992 when the Department of Education, on defining the curriculum forprimary (Departament d’Ensenyament, 1992a) and compulsory secondary education(Departament d’Ensenyament, 1992b), first referred to ‘‘interculturality’’. For theDepartment, it is necessary that the innumerable decisions that are taken every day arecoherent with an educational project that tends towards an intercultural society, without

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279 267

defining this, and promote the capacity for interpersonal relations and social insertion andaction.Thus, in 1993 Inter-departmental Plan for Immigration was approved. This would lead,

years later, to the concretion of the intercultural option. The document envisaged action bythe Department of Education, as well as other departments, in the field of interculturality,specifically in the training of trainers. According to Salvador Carrasco (1999), sociologistand then in the General Sub-department, the idea of the plan was to promote a generalpolicy for immigration, promoting full integration and facilitating access to existingresources and programmes, adapting them to the necessities when needed. On anotherhand, during the 1993–1994 and 1995–1996 courses, various guidelines and resolutionsfrom the Council of the European Union about the response to the problems of racism andxenophobia were published.12 In his opinion, some of these would corroborate the line ofwork taken. However, it was in 1996, with the publication of the ‘‘transversal axis onintercultural education’’, when a clearer bid was made to advance towards this model. Thisdocument (Departament d’Ensenyament, 1996) affirmed that education has to prepare thenew generations for life in Catalan society, an aim implying developing a set of attitudesand aptitudes in all the pupils with respect to their own culture and cultural diversity insociety and the school. This was rooted in the community itself and openness, respect anddialogue, tolerance and critical sense, coexistence and constructive resolution of conflicts,empathy and affirmation of one’s own identity, etc. In this framework, the teaching staffwas invited to introduce these approaches into schools and not to see them as adding to theteaching task a load that generates headaches and stress.The document, the basis for the transversal axis to be followed in schools in Catalonia,

considers that it should not be a superficial educational practice, on the margin of theordinary curriculum, nor aimed solely at the culturally different minority pupils.Intercultural education is intended to give all pupils the above-mentioned ‘‘culturalcompetence’’ in each centre and classroom. Thus, the objectives of this conception ofintercultural education would be:

(1) cultivate positive intercultural attitudes (respect, value, tolerate, overcome prejudices);(2) improve the personal, cultural and academic self-conception (look after one’s own

cultural identity, introduce different cultural elements);(3) strengthen coexistence (discover resemblances, play and learn co-operatively, resolve

conflicts constructively); and(4) improve the equality of opportunity for all pupils (maximise performance, adapt the

curriculum, manifest positive expectations).

If we follow Ouellet (1991),13 the position taken in this document by the Generalitat deCatalunya would respond, to a great degree, to the model of ‘‘taking cultural differencesinto consideration’’, that postulates that it is necessary to prepare the pupils to live in aculturally diverse society. Thus, the principal objectives of this model coincide: strive forthe participation and implication of parents in the educational project, promote awarenessof cultural diversity, promote the implication of the teaching staff and give importance to

ARTICLE IN PRESS

12See Hansen (1998).13He would group the efforts for the promotion of intercultural education into three models: promotion of

cultural pluralism, taking cultural differences into consideration and combating racism.

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279268

the mother tongue. If the discourse is analysed in greater depth, it must be pointed out thatsome of these objectives for the priorities and specifications that appear in the document,such as the reference to the mother tongues, although important, are given lower prioritythan others. But it is also true that, although it is little, the Department of Educationcarries out the programme of ‘‘Learning, for the immigrant pupils, of Arab language andculture’’ that seeks to promote courses with the aim of conserving their identity and, to thisrespect, make them feel accepted in Catalonia. This programme is carried out with theschool timetable and is voluntary for the families of these pupils. These courses will only berun in some zones and it must be mentioned that they are not yet very well developed(Secretaria per a la Immigracio, 2001a, 2001b).

In Catalonia, these orientations to define intercultural education passes to the schoolsthe request for them, slowly, to adopt their Educational Project (PEC)14 and CurricularProject (PCC)15 to its objectives (at first only a few of these to ensure that they would reallybe put into practice and advance progressively). For Jordan, Castella, and Pinto (1998)(the former played an important role in drawing up the document in the Department ofEducation), the process of preparing an intercultural curriculum in the centres consists ofthese three logical stages—the Centre Educational Project (CEP), the Centre CurricularProject (CCP) and transfer to the areas of knowledge. To achieve this, some basic criteriaare provided to draw up the CEP in the line of inter-culturality. Among others, theseinclude proposing lines of action to eradicate prejudices, reflecting on the multiculturalsociety and what it represents; ensuring the participation of parents; giving priority to thedesign of objectives in the field of inter-culturality and debating cultural proposals fromdifferent areas.

To sum up, nowadays the Department of Education’s policy of intercultural education iscentred and defined in five wide fields of action. These are the reception of recently arrivedpupils in the school; support for school enrolment; training of teaching staff inintercultural education; support for the teaching staff (didactic material); and thepromotion and participation in fields of debate about intercultural education (Castella,2001; Secretaria per a la Immigracio, 2001). It must be said that these actions are speciallydesigned for immigrant-origin pupils and would indirectly implicate gypsies given that theyare recognised as culturally different, although their incorporation in the school is believedto be difficult (Garreta, 2003).

4. Catalonia and cultural diversity during the 1990s and beginning of the new century

During recent years, the studies carried out centre their interest, or part of it, on thediscourse, guidelines and intervention, that is, on the practice. These, not to be toonegative, could be said not always to be favourable to what the Generalitat of Catalunyahas been doing to respond to the recently so-highly valued cultural diversity. These workshave often been more critical of the interventions and guidelines, in that order, than with

ARTICLE IN PRESS

14For the Department of Education, the CEP is made up of the pedagogical and organisational principals andthe linguistic project.

15The curricular project (PCC) is an eminently pedagogical document that is a basic instrument for defining theapproaches and options that respect the principals and the prescriptions of the curriculum, the structuralorganisation of the educational system and diversity of characteristics of the pupils.

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279 269

the discourses, which, despite the criticisms they have and can receive, have been adaptedto the dominant intercultural current.In 1992, Pascual analysed the response given by the Catalan administration to cultural

diversity confirming that the school system had maintained the official curriculumpractically intact, the only response being the reinforcing of schooling for those who arrivehalf-way through a course or cycle. With respect to the centres, the admission ofimmigrant-origin children is often perceived as a problem, especially when they arrive half-schooled, have a lower level than the majority of the native children of their age and whenthe school becomes, or is thought to be becoming, a ghetto-school. In third place, thepedagogical practice of the teachers was limited to the curricular lines that the schoolimposed and, in particular, to each centre’s educational plan. In each centre, theeducational offer was mono-cultural and uniform, whether there were minority pupils ornot.For Bartolome (1997), the approach by Pascual should be modified and take into

account the contribution of the Compensatory Education Programme, that has worked foryears; the various experiences, the result of the growing sensitivity to cultural differences;the training courses on this theme and the support of various movements, associations andinstitutions, international agreements and support, and the materials and resourcesprepared for use by the teaching staff. We would also add the programme of trainingtrainers carried out by the Autonomous University of Barcelona and the Department ofEducation (see Carrasco, Soto, & Tovıas, 1997).But it is also true that the Colectivo IOE (1996) concluded in its work that the dominant

tendency in the Spanish school,16 both at a practical and an ideological level, is anassimilating posture. For the Colectivo IOE, a profound reappraisal is needed of theconceptions the school institutions and the majority of its agents and implicate theeducators seriously in the proposal of intercultural education to abandon the assimilatoryapproaches. Specifically, with reference to the teaching staff, it is believed necessary not topolarise efforts on the attitudes of the teaching staff or the contents, but rather to worksimultaneously in both directions.In 1998, Palaudarias differentiated three levels of action and intervention carried out

with regard to the presence of the cultural diversity generated by foreign-origin pupils17:discursive, normative and compensatory of inequalities. From the discursive point of view,he considered that the Administration and the educational services had generated adiscourse in which the concepts of inter-culturality and intercultural education filled thevacuum created by the non-existence of guidelines, strategies and school practices fordealing with cultural diversity. However, Palaudarias considered that understanding thediscourse was difficult given that it had to articulate the previous, essentially assimilatory,practices, and the changes that supposed the transfer to the praxis of the interculturaldiscourse. This meant, among other things, that the teaching staff had promoted few newand really intercultural practices and guidelines and that when they had done so these fellinto the promotion in schools of action about ‘‘other cultures’’ without too much priorreflection, often falling into the folkloric, which Banks (1986) called addition. At thesecond level, the normative, the author considered that although no specific normative had

ARTICLE IN PRESS

16His work was centred on Moroccans in Catalonia and the Autonomous Community of Madrid, which has thehighest number of immigrant origin pupils.

17In some occasions taking and adapting previous legislation and the practices.

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279270

been generated, the existing one had been adapted, in some aspects, with the intention ofproviding a legal framework for the recognition and defence of the educational rights ofthe immigrants and their families. As far as the gypsies were concerned, being Spanishcitizens, specific legislation would be unnecessary. The third level, the compensation forinequalities, was defined by the compensatory focus that it had taken on in Catalonia. Thispolicy, applied through the really compensatory Compensatory Education Programme,and the linguistic Catalan Teaching Service, that aimed at integration, was not welladapted to school practices. He considered that there was a policy to orientate theschooling of the children of non-Community immigrants, but he found it to be seriouslydamaged, having been applied for some time without obtaining the expected results, andunable to face the challenges of a multi-cultural society. Years later, Palaudarias (2002)recognised that, more than the official programmes, some professionals have progressedcloser to intercultural action than the really compensatory education. However, he stillconsiders an effort in this direction necessary given that little has yet been done.

Another study that should be mentioned is the one that, from a comparative point ofview, specifically compared intercultural education in Switzerland and Spain, especially inCatalonia, and which carried out by Akkari and Ferrer (2000). This work, after presentingthe statistics about students belonging to the cultural minorities, analysed the distributionpolicy and the reception and support programmes for these pupils. It then affirmed thatthe current theoretical and practical position with respect to intercultural education, bothin the schools, the public administration and society, is generally assimilatory. This,according to their opinion, is closely related to the process of strengthening culturalidentity in Catalonia and the implicit belief that diversity, rather than enriching thisprocess, obstructs it. The dominant assimilatory and compensatory models in theeducational administration in Catalonia respond to the affirmation of the culture of thehost society. This situation is not seen as contradictory to the compensatory vision,endorsed by the Administration,18 of the phenomena of intercultural education and, inturn, signs are seen of an opening towards more advanced models. The Arab language andculture classes would be indicators of this.

To sum up, the studies cited present a certain evolution during the 1990s but continueindicating, more or less conclusively, that the educational practice is more assimilatory andcompensatory than really intercultural. We wished to verify this fact by carrying out anextensive in-depth study into the situation of the attitudes and opposition, andintercultural practice in schools in Catalonia (see Garreta & Llevot, 2003).19 This alsoindicated that the dynamic of implanting intercultural education is slow (although we alsogive it a certain leeway) and that until now, due to the lack of a general proposal or onefrom a specific centre, the teaching staff have not received adequate orientation andresources and nor are they obliged to define themselves on this question and thus act.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

18Inducing and disseminating this focus among the teaching professionals.19Our interest was to analyse the opinion and the attitudes of the teaching staff from the public, private and

grant-aided private primary and compulsory secondary education centres (pupils from 6 to 16 years old) inCatalonia. For this, using the Department of Education census of teaching staff, the sample was calculated to givean optimum degree of error. Thus the sample was 740 teaching staff from all over Catalonia, which, in the mostunfavourable case (p ! q ! 50%) and with 95.5% confidence, gives a degree of error of 73.6. The fieldwork wasdone through personal interviews in the centres. A total of 211 schools scattered around all the districts ofCatalonia were visited.

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279 271

Through our empirical study, we were able to establish the extent of training in this fieldamong teaching staff in compulsory education in Catalonia, and we consider it no morethan insufficient and poor, as do other authors. However, it is also true that this is owing tothe current situation, given that until a few years ago, the concern to maintain and respectcultural diversity did not dominate. On the contrary, homogeneity was valued. Apart fromthis, many teachers have other training priorities or preferences. Nevertheless, not all theresponsibility should be placed on the teaching staff. The educational administration andthe University Schools for Teachers, nowadays Faculties of Educational Sciences, alsohave responsibility.20

Referring to initial training in cultural diversity, intercultural education, etc., which isthe responsibility of the university, 90% of the interviewees stated that they had none. Thislack of specific training is related to the age of the interviewee, as among the under 30s, thisresponse fell to 68%, indicating that there have been changes in teacher traininginstitutions and that they are gradually incorporating training options in this field.As far as on-going training is concerned, the results show firstly an improvement in the

level, in comparison with initial training, although 64% have none. This percentage againvaries in function of age, but in this case in the opposite sense: the younger the teacher themore they affirm not having done any (73%),21 against 57% for the over-50s. Amongthose who state that they have done on-going training in cultural diversity, the most usualis courses on diversity (17%),22 conflict resolution (8%), intercultural education (7.5%),adaptation of the curriculum to cultural diversity (4%) and practical strategies for workingwith it in the classroom (2%). The circumstances that the teaching staff find themselves incondition the choice of on-going training, whether this is on general or more specificthemes. Thus, for example, as the presence of gypsy and immigrant-origin pupils increases,so does the index of on-going training related to cultural diversity received by the teacher.To give an overall vision, teachers were divided into three groups in function of their

training in the field of cultural diversity in the school. The differentiation was relativelyeasy given that, on one hand, there were those without any kind of training and, on theother, those that had done third cycle studies, i.e., those who had specialised. It appearsfrom this classification that 57.7% of the teaching staff have no training in this field, 40.3%have a basic level (from the mentioned criteria, those that had done some training courseor courses; for example, with a duration of 10, 15 or 20 h). The remaining 2% wereconsidered to have specialised training (Graph 1).Continuing with more data, which can be found in greater detail in Garreta and Llevot

(2003), the teaching staff in compulsory education in Catalonia believe that all, and werepeat all, centres should have intercultural education as a reference. Based on theseresults, it seems that the crystallisation of the aims of interculturality will not fail as a resultof opposition from the teaching staff. Evidently, however, there is a small minority who donot believe that intercultural education must be a reference for all centres (2.5% are ‘‘littlein agreement’’ and 0.1% ‘‘not at all’’). The results obtained are presented graphically inGraph 2.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

20For a basic explanation of what is done and who does it in initial and on-going training in Spain, consult:Centro de Investigacion y Documentacion Educativa (2000).

21It must be stated that age is a conditioning factor.22The courses mentioned (antiracist education, coexistence, Arab language, etc.) are so varied, that it was opted

to group everything that cannot be placed in the following categories under this label.

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279272

However, on the other hand, there are difficulties with putting the pedagogic aims intopractice in schools. To sum up, the proposition, ‘‘the discourse of intercultural education isdifficult to put into daily practice’’, is a warning. Although it is believed that it has to go ina specific direction, how to put it on the road and how this discourse can become a realityis not clearly seen (Graph 3).

The opinion that this is difficult is more common among those teachers who have notraining in the field of cultural diversity, intercultural education, etc., and less so for thosewho the training received has given more confidence that it can be put into practice. It isalso true that, despite the training received, they are suspicious.

Another question that continues to indicate the existing situation is the answer to thephrase ‘‘the increase in cultural diversity in the classroom represents adding to the loadthat the teaching staff already have to bear’’.23 Again, the answers differ significantlydepending on whether it is from teaching staff trained in this field, who are less inagreement, than those who have no training, with a higher level of agreement. Thus,without much orientation, only that which some received in the initial and on-goingtraining, and which is not always the best possible, the day to day question is to see wholooks after these pupils, whether it is the teaching staff in the classroom or a specialist. Thisalso means falling back on elements of professional and personal baggage (from resources

ARTICLE IN PRESS

58

38.5

0.1

0.92.5

A lot Enough Little Nothing Not respond

Graph 2. Level of training in the field of cultural diversity among teaching staff in compulsory education.

57.5

40.3

2

Without training Basic Specialised

Graph 1. Level of training in the field of cultural diversity among teaching staff in compulsory education inCatalonia.

23Specifically, 42.5% would be ‘‘a lot’’, 43.5% ‘‘enough’’, 10% ‘‘little’’ and 3% ‘‘nothing’’, the others did notrespond.

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279 273

from previous situations to notions of common sense, and here one finds action based bothon ethics, for example human rights, as well as the ethnocentric prejudices).As mentioned, in Catalonia, the deployment and the concretion of the curriculum is a

process that requires a set of decisions based on the characteristics of each centre. Theseare specified in the CEP, the CCP and in the programming of the cycle (Department ofEducation, 1995). Thus the Departament d’Ensenyament (1996) gives a set of guidelinesfor taking inter-culturality into consideration in the cited documents so that it impregnatesthe day-to-day practice in the schools. However, it should be asked if these guidelines anddocuments have had any effect on the centres. This is not only from the fact that there areethnic minority groups, but also for the multi-linguistic and multi-national composition ofthe Spanish state, not to mention the cultural pluralism which is characteristic of advancedsocieties. To what extent have the CEP, the CCP and the curricular areas taken intoaccount that we live in a multicultural society and adapted to this reality? These are someof the questions posed and which we try to answer from the results obtained.Concentrating on the CEP, we asked our interlocutors to tell us the degree to which they

believe that ‘‘common criteria for working on cultural diversity [have been] established’’.The answers indicate that 15.5% of the teaching staff believe that it has been adapted ‘‘alot’’ and 35% ‘‘enough’’, while 32.5% consider it ‘‘little’’ or ‘‘not at all’’. As on otheroccasions, this data can be differentiated to indicate who have adapted the PEC of theircentre more to the cultural diversity of society. This is in function of the presence ofimmigrants, not gypsies. As an example of this, as the presence of foreigners in the centreincreases, so does the degree of adaptation of the CEP to cultural diversity, while in centreswithout foreigners ‘‘little adaptation’’ occurs. Moreover, certain origins influence morethan others. Adaptation is higher among those centres with pupils of EU, sub-Saharan andMaghreb origin (in that order) while it is significantly lower when the pupils are gypsies.Following this logic, the PEC is more adapted in the centres where the teaching staff hasmore training in cultural diversity. There is no doubt that training is linked to theexperience of cultural diversity in the school and the classroom, and that it awakens theinterest of the teaching staff beyond the ‘‘credential pressure’’.A similar degree of adaptation appears in the CCPs, about which the interviewees were

asked if they believed ‘‘the CCP had adequately detailed the need to attend to culturaldiversity’’. This way, while in the previous project we were interested in knowing ifcommon criteria had been established, in this case, it was whether they had stated thatadequate attention was necessary. The answers given were mainly ‘‘little’’ (27.5%) and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

32.5

43.5

12.5 3.5 1

Alot Enough Little Nothing Not respond

Graph 3. Degree of agreement with: ‘‘The intercultural education discourse is difficult to put into daily practice’’.

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279274

‘‘enough’’ (38.5%). Leaving aside the few who did not answer, 17% answered ‘‘a lot’’,while 10% say ‘‘not at all’’. On this occasion, the points mentioned when referring to theCEP also appear. As the number of foreigners in the centres increases, the CCP ismentioned more often. This increase is more important when there are pupils of EU, sub-Saharan and Maghreb origin (in this order), while the centres that have gypsy pupils arethe ones that make the fewest changes. Moreover, we continue noting that the responseschange in function of the training the teaching staff has in the field of cultural diversity,and there is a direct relation between training and higher assertion of the need for adequateattention. These results perpetuate our opinion that action is taken in specific contexts andsituations, but not in others, and this is not what the intercultural model advocates.Naturally, it can always be added that more time is needed and that a start has been madewhere the needs are more urgent.

With reference to the third of the steps necessary to draw up an intercultural curriculum,specifying the way in which interculturalism can be worked on in the different curricularareas, another trigger sentence allowed insight into the work done. In this occasion wewere interested in knowing if ‘‘how to work on interculturality in the different areas’’ hadbeen specified and the results showed that less progress has been made than in the previousquestions, which in turn, as mentioned above, we do not consider to be notable. Theanswers were again concentrated in ‘‘little’’ (39%) and ‘‘enough’’ (35%). At the extremes,12% say ‘‘nothing’’ and 9% that ‘‘a lot’’ has been done. As above, as the number offoreigners in the centres rises, the affirmative responses increase while those schools thathave gypsy pupils continue to adapt to a lesser degree.

From the above, it is deduced in general terms that, when we refer to pedagogical andorganisational principals (CEP) and there curricular concretion (CCP), more has beendone the closer we go to the more concrete, that is to the extrapolation of the approachdevised to the areas of knowledge. Thus, for A. Jordan, E. Castella and C. Pinto, theprocess of preparing an intercultural curriculum in the centre consists of three steps. It canbe said that the first two have been started and carried out in some centres. However, thelast, and most specific, level is not as far forward as it is more difficult and requires moreinvolvement (Table 1).

To continue getting closer to the practices we wished to know, as well as the previousaction done in the field of the centres, if the teaching staff had done anything in the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1Adaptation to diversity in educational centres

Establish common criteriain the PEC for working oncultural diversity

Detail the need to attend tocultural diversity in thePCC

Specify how to work oncultural diversity in theareas of knowledge

A lot 15.5 17 9Enough 35 38.5 35Little 32.5 27.5 39None 9 10 12

No answer 8 7 5

Mean 2.6 2.7 2.4Deviation 0.88 0.89 0.83

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279 275

classroom. This not only means if the teaching staff in the school as a whole are more orless interested in this question, but rather whether the interviewee had done anythingpersonally and, in case of not having done anything, how they justify this decision. Thefirst point to emphasise is that over half (51.5%) of those interviewed had done nothing, anomission justified because there was no diversity (41%) or because they did not believe itwas necessary to do anything (10.5%). The answers obtained still show that there is theperception that these questions belong to the centres and classrooms where there is culturaldiversity and, apparently, teachers tend to consider that the rest of the students need notprepare themselves to live in a culturally diverse society. It is curious and symptomatic tosee that 29% of the teaching staff who have more than 5% of foreign-origin students, or27% of those who have gypsies, argue that it is not necessary to do anything, given that‘‘there is no diversity in the class’’.Among those who had done something to take the cultural diversity into consideration,

they mention that they have given specific explanations about the culture of some students(15%), carried out specific curricular changes (14%), dedicated sessions to tolerance(10.5%), organised tutorials (5%) and informative sessions for the parents of the gypsy orimmigrant origin students (4%), organised intercultural conferences (2.5%), adaptedlinguistically (3%) and explained the host society to the minorities (0.5%). This being anopen question allows us to see the definition that is made of adaptation to culturaldiversity, often interpreted as an addition and not necessarily transversally (impregnatingall the subjects over the whole course24) (Table 2).On their part, almost the only answer from those who had not adapted was that ‘‘it was

not necessary’’ (90%). The data, as well as indicating that there is a part of the teaching

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2Action to attend to the cultural diversity in the classroom in function of the presence of ethnic minorities

Action Total Classroom with ethnicminoritiesa

Classroom withoutethnic minorities

None, there is no cultural diversity 41 27 58.5None, it is not necessary to doanything

10.5 13.2 7

Intercultural conferences 2.5 2.5 3Informative sessions with the families 4 6.5 1Specific curricular changes 14 19 7.5Specific explanation about their culture 15 18 11.5Explanation about the host society forthe minorities

0.5 0.2 0.3

Dedicate sessions to talking abouttolerance

10.5 11 10

Tutorials 5 6.5 3Linguistic adaptation 3 4 2Other 5.3 7.5 2.2Don’t know/no answer 0.7 0.5 0.6

aUnderstood as the presence of gypsy and/or from immigrant origin students.

24Although we will not develop this further here, other more specific questions on this theme were asked in thecited text by Garreta and Llevot (2003) and Garreta (2004).

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279276

staff who believe it unnecessary to do anything in this field, also showed that thisperception is still higher in the classrooms without gypsy or immigrant-origin students.Other answers mention that they believe that something should be done, or do not dare tosay that it is necessary, but... The justified ‘‘buts’’ range from there being ‘‘too much workand time cannot be dedicated to it’’ (5%),25 to ‘‘it is not necessary to do it in my subject’’(3%), ‘‘others have done it so I do not need to’’ (1%) and, in last place, those who ‘‘do notknow how to do it’’ (0.5%). It is curious that this last argument appears with soinfrequently when they have previously acknowledged not knowing how to work on thetheme. It is logical that a phrase that does not carry any blame for the interlocutor gathersmore answers in this sense than a spontaneous one where they must recognise their ownlimitations.

5. Conclusions

As shown above, Spain, and in particular Catalonia, has taken steps towardsrecognising the presence and valuing cultural diversity in the classroom. If initially, withrespect to the gypsies, the most common was a lack of concern about their schooling, thisevolved until reaching the inclusion of these students in the ordinary classroom, previouslypassing through segregationist experiences. Spain has evolved in a short time from acentralised educational system, where cultural diversity, focused on the gypsies, wasscorned, to a decentralised system of autonomous communities, much closer to amulticultural pedagogic model, especially designed for immigrant origin pupils, and inwhich the cultural pluralism of the state is accentuated. The 1980s and 1990s would beyears of school enrolment, with the support of the compensatory programmes, with theaim of improving opportunities and facilitating the process of integration, equal toassimilation for most of the authors cited. In the mid-1990s, the increase in the number ofimmigrant-origin students and the guidelines from the Council of Europe, as well as theinternal dynamic followed by the Catalan Administration led to the commitment tointercultural education. However, although it is true that some action has been carried out,it seems (as the 1996 document implied) to be left excessively as a responsibility for theteaching staff. Most teachers already feel overloaded with responsibilities (in line with thewell-known text by Hargreaves, 1996) and although pedagogic programme has beenaccepted, most do not know how to put it into practice. Moreover, there is another greatproblem in the implementation of the model. This is the fact that teachers who do not haveethnic minorities in their centres and classrooms do not feel implicated and believe that it isnot up to them to prepare the new generations to live in a culturally diverse society. Morespecifically, those who do act, do so depending on whether they are dealing withimmigrants or gypsies. We continue to see that it is the gypsies who still are mainlyforgotten continue in the rhetoric of interculturality that has been constructed, as well as inthe day-to-day practice by teachers.

It must be asked whether there is really a desire to put the intercultural model intopractice. This is another basic question that is being studied through interviews withpolitical and technical representatives from the administration. It appears very necessaryto make a clearer commitment to the development of the proposed model, which is nothing

ARTICLE IN PRESS

25The excuse, real or ficticious, of too much work is more prevalent among those teachers who have minoritiesin their classroom (7%).

J. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279 277

more than coherent when it reflects a reclamation of a cultural difference, the Catalan, in awider context, Spain and Europe. Although it is also true that the existence of a pedagogicrhetoric in itself, without resources, strategies for intervention, etc., can be very useful forprotecting a culture and identity that feels threatened by Spain and by the arrival of a largenumber of immigrants. Thus, if its application is not reinforced, this would lead us toconclude that interculturality as a mirage that hides a reality far removed from theseapproaches. But, is this specific to the Spanish case or the Catalan case? Perhaps asCatalonia perceives a threat from a double risk (the linguistic hegemony of Castilian overCatalan and the erosion of Catalan culture and identity that the presence of foreign-originimmigrants could represent) we could believe that, as in other divided societies or with theambiguity of ethnic domination given a double majority (see, among others, McAndrew,2001; McAndrew & Gagnon, 2000; Garreta, Samper, & Llevot, 2003), there is resistance tothe real recognition of other cultures. But maybe not, and it is more likely the universalphenomenum of the contradictions between legal texts, pedagogic orientations, curriculardesignsy and the reality in the school. To sum up, it is a question of one the hiddenfunctions of the educational system to correct and adapt the great words that, at least intheory, inspire the laws, orientations and designs of the specific practices in the classroomsto the day-to-day reality.

References

Akkari, A., & Ferrer, F. (2000). La educacion intercultural en Espana y Suiza: un enfoque comparativo. RevistaEspanola de Educacion Comparada, 6, 285–316.

Banks, J. A. (1986). Race, ethnicity and shooling in the United States: Past, present and future. In J. A. Banks, &J. Lynch (Eds.), Multicultural education in western societies (pp. 30–50). New York: Praeger.

Bartolome, M. (1997). Minorıas etnicas, inmigracion y educacion multicultural. El estado de la cuestion enCataluna. In M. Bartolome (Ed.), Diagnostico a la escuela multicultural (pp. 27–81). Barcelona: Cedecs.

Calero, J., & Bonal, X. (1999). Polıtica educativa y gasto publico en educacion: aspectos teoricos y una aplicacion alcaso espanol. Barcelona: Pomares-Corredor.

Carabana, J. (1993). A favor del individualismo y contra las ideologıas multiculturalistas. Revista de Educacion,302, 61–82.

Carrasco, S. (1999). Formacion de formadores y formadoras en el campo de la interculturalidad. Una experienciadesde la Administracion Educativa de Cataluna. Boletın del Centro de Documentacion de la Asociacion deEnsenantes con Gitanos, 16– 17, 47–58.

Carrasco, S., Soto, P., & Tovıas, S. (1997). Un programa interdisciplinar. Cuadernos de Pedagogıa, 264, 44–47.Castella, E., 2001. Les polıtiques escolars adrec-ades a l’alumnat d’origen immigrant. Encuentro de Trabajo

Cataluna-Quebec 24, 25 and 26 April, Barcelona, unpublished.Centro de Investigacion y Documentacion Educativa (1992). El sistema educativo espanol, Ministerio de

Educacion y Ciencia, Madrid.Centro de Investigacion y Documentacion Educativa (2000). El sistema educativo espanol, Ministerio de

Educacion y Ciencia, Madrid.Colectivo IOE (1996). La educacion intercultural a prueba, Hijos de inmigrantes marroquıes en la escuela,

Laboratorio de Estudios Interculturales, Granada.Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: US Office of Education.Conseil de l’Europe (1983). L’education des enfants migrants. Recueil d’informations sur les operations d’education

interculturelle en Europe, Conseil de la Cooperation Culturelle, Strasbourg.Conseil de l’Europe (1989). L’education interculturelle. Concept, contexte et programme, Conseil de la Cooperation

Culturelle, Strasbourg.Crespo, R. (1997). Inmigracion y escuela. In Diputacio de Barcelona (Ed.), II Informe sobre inmigracion y trabajo

social (pp. 625–663). Barcelona: Diputacio de Barcelona.Departament d’Ensenyament. (1992a). Currıculum. Educacio primaria. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279278

Departament d’Ensenyament. (1992b). Educacio secundaria obligatoria. Ordenacio Curricular. Barcelona:Generalitat de Catalunya.

Departament d’Ensenyament. (1996). Orientacions per al desplegament del currıculum. Educacio intercultural.Generalitat de Catalunya.

Departament d’Ensenyament. (2002). Dades de l’inici del curs 2002– 2003. Dossier de Premsa. Generalitat deCatalunya, Barcelona, unpublished.

Fernandez Enguita, M. (1996). Escuela y etnicidad. El caso del pueblo gitano, Laboratorio de EstudiosInterculturales, Granada.

Garcıa, F. J., Barragan, C., Granados, A., & Garcıa-Cano, M. (2002). Lo intercultural en las teorıas y accionesinterculturales. Una decada de interculturalidad en los discursos pedagogicos y practicas educativas en elEstado espanol. In F. Checa (Ed.), Las migraciones a debate. De las teorıas a las practicas sociales (pp.209–256). Barcelona: Icaria.

Garreta, J. (2003). La integracion sociocultural de las minorıas etnicas (inmigrantes y gitanos). Barcelona:Anthropos.

Garreta, J. (2004). El espejismo intercultural. La escuela de Cataluna ante la diversidad cultural. Revista deEducacion, 333, 463–480.

Garreta, J., & Llevot, N. (2003). El espejismo intercultural. La escuela de Cataluna ante la diversidad cultural,Centro de Investigacion y Documentacion Educativa, Madrid.

Graneras, M., Lamelas, R., Segalerva, A., Vazquez, E., Gordo, J. L., & Molinuevo, J. (1997). Catorce anos deinvestigacion sobre desigualdades en la educacion, Centro de Investigacion y Documentacion Educativa,Madrid.

Halsey, A. H. (1977). Towards Meritocracy? The Case of Britain. In J. Karabel, & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power andideology in education (pp. 173–186). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hansen, P. (1998). Educacion intercultural e inmigracion en la Unio Europea: visiones, paradojas, exclusiones. InX. Besalu, & J. M. Palaudarias (Eds.), La educacion intercultural en Europa (pp. 67–92). Barcelona: Pomares-Corredor.

Hargreaves, D. H. (1996). Profesorado, cultura y postmodernidad: cambian los tiempos, cambia el profesorado.Madrid: Morata.

Jenks, C. S., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., et al. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment ofthe effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.

Jordan, A., Castella, E., & Pinto, C. (1998). Multiculturalisme i educacio. Barcelona: Universitat Oberta deCatalunya-Proa.

Liegeois, J. P. (1987). Gitanos e itinerantes, Asociacion Nacional Presencia Gitana, Madrid.Ouellet, F. (1991). L’education interculturelle. Paris: L’Harmattan.Palaudarias, J. M. (1998). Analisis de la polıtica educativa en la escolarizacion de las minorıas culturales en

Catalunya. In X. Besalu, G. Campani, & J. M. Palaudarias (Eds.), La educacion intercultural en Europa (pp.171–180). Barcelona: Pomares-Corredor.

Palaudarias, J. M. (2002). Escola i immigracio estrangera a Catalunya: la integracio escolar. Papers. Revista deSociologia, 66, 199–213.

Pascual, J. (1992). La socialitzacio dels fills de magrebins a Osona. In J. L. Alegret, & J. Botey (Eds.), Sobreinterculturalitat (pp. 139–146). Girona: Sergi.

Samper, L., Garreta, J., & Llevot, N. (2001). Les enjeux de la diversite culturelle dans l’ecole catalane (Espagne).Revue des Sciences de l’Education de la Univesite de Montreal, 3, 543–568.

San Roman, T. (1984). Gitanos de Madrid y Barcelona. Barcelona: Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona.Secretaria per a la Immigracio. (2001a). Pla interdepartamental d’immigracio 2001– 2004, Vol. 1. Barcelona:

Generalitat de Catalunya.Secretaria per a la Immigracio. (2001b). Pla interdepartamental d’immigracio 2001– 2004, Vol. 2. Barcelona:

Generalitat de Catalunya.Secretaria per a la Immigracio. (2003). Debats d’immigracio a Catalunya. Aportacions de la societat civil.

Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.Secretariado Nacional Gitano (1982). La escuela ‘‘puente’’ para ninos gitanos, Secretariado Nacional Gitano,

Madrid.Tarrow, N. (1990). A tri-level model of intercultural education in two regions of Spain, Deutsches Institut fur

Internationale Pedagogische Forschung, Frankfurt.Terren, E. (2001). El contacto intercultural en la escuela. A Coruna: Servicio de Publicacions da Universidade da

Coruna.

ARTICLE IN PRESSJ. Garreta Bochaca / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 261–279 279